Just Accidental?

[Hockeycowboy]

A one-step lightning strike has very much been thought of/hypothesized in combination of the gradual.

Crazy, isn't it?! One lightning strike, and the fragile lifeless cell becomes.....even more lifeless!

 

[stevevw]

If natural selection is not blind then why did Richard Dawkins one of the worlds greatest supporters Darwins evolution by natural selection say this,

"Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker"

 

[metis]

If natural selection is not blind then why did Richard Dawkins one of the worlds greatest supporters Darwins evolution by natural selection say this,

He believes it's "blind" when put in conjunction with mutation and (random) genetic drift. However, natural selection by itself is "selective" as the label of the concept itself states, but he believes it works with the randomness of both mutation and genetic drift.

 

[Jose Fly]

I truly wish we could discuss this in person. I don't think the ad hominems would be so quickly thrown around, on either side.

Having done this in person several times, you are correct in that name-calling doesn't happen. However, the primary difference I've noticed is that with the creationists and how they can't utilize their most common tactic in online debates......ignoring questions and information. When you're in person and someone asks you a question or shows you data, it's really, really hard to flat-out ignore it the way creationists do online.

And the experience of debating with "a" creationist shouldn't be indicative of all. For one, I'm not a YEC.

I'm curious.....why do you not debate the YEC's here? I would think your disagreement with them is more significant than the one you have with us science advocates. After all, your disagreement with YECs is not just about science but is also about scripture, which I would think is more important.

I go from door to door witnessing, talking to strangers in an unfamiliar setting. You have to develop a desire to do that, it usually doesn't come naturally. LOL!

That's interesting, because about 20 years ago a couple of JWs came to my door and I invited them in specifically to talk about evolution. They were eager because they had some literature on that subject and felt they were ready for the discussion. What they didn't realize was that I was fresh out of graduate school, with all my textbooks, publications, class notes, and other material at the ready. I let them go through their rote talking points, and then we walked through them one-by-one, evaluating each against the data and information that I had. If I remember correctly, by the time we were examining the second talking point (transitional fossils) they looked at each other and then said to me "Is it all right if we just leave our material with you? We have other houses to visit." I told them that was no problem, but on their way out I asked them "Now that we've shown how your organization's material isn't accurate, how does it make you feel that they are sending you out into the public to spread false information?" They literally said nothing as they hurried out the door, and I've never been visited by JWs since.

So yeah, you're right. In person these debates are quite different.

 

[FearGod]

He believes it's "blind" when put in conjunction with mutation and (random) genetic drift. However, natural selection by itself is "selective" as the label of the concept itself states, but he believes it works with the randomness of both mutation and genetic drift.

How did you know what he meant by it? his statement was about the process of natural selection,
you may say he doesn't have good knowledge than trying to defend his views.

 

[ArtieE]

"At some point." What is that point? It is not known.

LOL. At the point when the cell can do all the things described here. The 7 Characteristics of Life Did you read it?

Self-replicating: What is the self?

The cell or collection of cells.

Do all "self's" experience biochemicals or are biochemicals?

Huh?

 

[ArtieE]

At "which point." What is that known point?

"Just becomes."

When the cell can do all these things it's alive. The 7 Characteristics of Life

 

[ArtieE]

Then evolution theory tells us that the selfish ones and non-cooperative individuals are the most "fit" to pass on genes.

Well, that's easy to check. Say you have a village of a hundred people, 25 families with two adults and two children and all the families help each other. They produce a lot of offspring. Then you have a different village with the same configuration but there all the families are selfish and don't cooperate. Which village do you think would be able to produce most offspring and pass on most genes?

 

[SkepticThinker]

How did you know what he meant by it? his statement was about the process of natural selection,
you may say he doesn't have good knowledge than trying to defend his views.

Perhaps he has read Dawkins' books. Or the context surrounding the quotation under discussion.

 

[Sapiens]

How did you know what he meant by it? his statement was about the process of natural selection,
you may say he doesn't have good knowledge than trying to defend his views.

Dawkins, on the cover of The Blind Watchmaker, said:

Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. The purpose of this book is to resolve the paradox to the satisfaction of the reader, and the purpose of this chapter is further to impress the reader with the power of the illusion of design.​

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Having done this in person several times, you are correct in that name-calling doesn't happen. However, the primary difference I've noticed is that with the creationists and how they can't utilize their most common tactic in online debates......ignoring questions and information. When you're in person and someone asks you a question or shows you data, it's really, really hard to flat-out ignore it the way creationists do online.


I'm curious.....why do you not debate the YEC's here? I would think your disagreement with them is more significant than the one you have with us science advocates. After all, your disagreement with YECs is not just about science but is also about scripture, which I would think is more important.


That's interesting, because about 20 years ago a couple of JWs came to my door and I invited them in specifically to talk about evolution. They were eager because they had some literature on that subject and felt they were ready for the discussion. What they didn't realize was that I was fresh out of graduate school, with all my textbooks, publications, class notes, and other material at the ready. I let them go through their rote talking points, and then we walked through them one-by-one, evaluating each against the data and information that I had. If I remember correctly, by the time we were examining the second talking point (transitional fossils) they looked at each other and then said to me "Is it all right if we just leave our material with you? We have other houses to visit." I told them that was no problem, but on their way out I asked them "Now that we've shown how your organization's material isn't accurate, how does it make you feel that they are sending you out into the public to spread false information?" They literally said nothing as they hurried out the door, and I've never been visited by JWs since.

So yeah, you're right. In person these debates are quite different.

I wished I had been there, to hear the entire conversation. Unfortunately, we only have your side. I know one thing: we will not be drawn into a quarrel...we’ll take our leave rather quickly.

Spreading “false information” — that’s rich.

 

[Sapiens]

I wished I had been there, to hear the entire conversation. Unfortunately, we only have your side. I know one thing: we will not be drawn into a quarrel...we’ll take our leave rather quickly.

Sure, just like y'all do here, eh?

Spreading “false information” — that’s rich.

Rich and accurate.

 

[Jose Fly]

I wished I had been there, to hear the entire conversation. Unfortunately, we only have your side.

It was pretty basic. They (and their literature) made claims about the alleged absence of transitional fossils. I gave a standard definition for "transitional fossil", asked them if they agreed with it, and asked if they would agree that if evolutionary common descent were true, those are the sorts of fossils we would expect to find (and not just in terms of their characteristics, but also their location (biogeography) and chronology).

They agreed and then I proceeded to show them that according to what they had just agreed to, transitional fossils are very abundant.

I know one thing: we will not be drawn into a quarrel...we’ll take our leave rather quickly.

Or even a reasonable discussion, as this thread testifies.

Spreading “false information” — that’s rich.

It wasn't that complicated. They said "X doesn't exist", we agreed what "X" would be, and then I showed them multiple examples of X. They had no answer other than to leave........just like this thread.

 

[Profound Realization]

Well, that's easy to check. Say you have a village of a hundred people, 25 families with two adults and two children and all the families help each other. They produce a lot of offspring. Then you have a different village with the same configuration but there all the families are selfish and don't cooperate. Which village do you think would be able to produce most offspring and pass on most genes?

That is what's funny, evolution theory and mathematics predict that the less cooperative and selfish are more "fit" to pass on their genes. "Most" genes are irrelevant. As well as when you said, "they produce a lot of offspring."

So, you're correct that it's easy to check that evolution theory is wrong in yet another regard.

Also, researchers are finding species that share a lot of genetic material with each other but didn’t behave altruistically, and other species that shared little and did.

More instances where the field data is not bearing out the mathematical predictions of evolution theory. As well as your instance where the easy reality check is not bearing out the mathematical predictions of evolution theory.

 

[Sapiens]

That is what's funny, evolution theory and mathematics predict that the less cooperative and selfish are more "fit" to pass on their genes.

Sorry but that is simply not the case. Read John Maynard Smith's works dealing with game theory and ESS.

Also, researchers are finding species that share a lot of genetic material with each other but didn’t behave altruistically, and other species that shared little and did.

References please.

More instances where the field data is not bearing out the mathematical predictions of evolution theory.

References please.

Do remember that altruism is not expected in all cases, but then neither is bloody tooth and fang style competition, it is a continuum that is a function of the genotype, phenotype and niche space.

 

[metis]

How did you know what he meant by it? his statement was about the process of natural selection,
you may say he doesn't have good knowledge than trying to defend his views.

I've read a couple of his books and he has more than enough knowledge since he's considered one of the foremost living experts on bio-evolution.

 

[FearGod]

Dawkins, on the cover of The Blind Watchmaker, said:

Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, .​

Natural selection doesn't make anything, it's all about blind mutations that produce perfect jobs.

 

[Sapiens]

How did you know what he meant by it? his statement was about the process of natural selection,
you may say he doesn't have good knowledge than trying to defend his views.

I know that he has sufficient knowledge ... I took my Animal Behavior class from him and we were in many seminars/lunches (that's the Berkeley system) together.

Natural selection doesn't make anything, it's all about blind mutations that produce perfect jobs.

Your sig line is right on, "We can't fix stupid." So ... let me say this only once: Mutation is the raw material, natural selection is the blind watchmaker.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Natural selection doesn't make anything, it's all about blind mutations that produce perfect jobs.

Actually it is both working together. Creationists often use the tactic of focusing on only mutations or only on natural selection (though there are other driving forces too). They are somewhat correct when they say "natural selection only lessens diversity, it does not add new ideas". Then in another argument they will point out that mere random changes will never accomplish order. And again, they are somewhat right. But what we have with both working together is a constant source of "new information" through mutations and the "bad information" being thrown away through natural selection.

The title of this thread is misleading since no one on the evolution side claims that evolution is accidental. It is a total misunderstanding of the process of evolution. Evolution is an event that happens to populations. It is no more "accidental" than it is an "accident" when insurance companies that insure against accidents can reliably make money. On an individual basis one could claim that the insurance racket is almost all loss or almost all gain. One customer may cost the company millions. But many thousands of customers can make the company net many millions of dollars.

 

[FearGod]

Your sig line is right on, "We can't fix stupid." So ... let me say this only once: Mutation is the raw material, natural selection is the blind watchmaker.

That is the moral of who claims to be good men, insulting like children than have real
discussion, be a real man then I may have a real discussion with you, but you don't even deserve my time.